The Supreme Court on Monday sought a response from the Union Government on a petition calling for an independent and impartial process for appointing the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG).

The PIL filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) urged the court to direct that the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) be carried out by an independent committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India.

The petitioner contended that the current system, where the Union Government unilaterally selects the CAG, undermines the office’s independence.

"In recent times, the CAG has lost its independence," advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the CPIL, submitted at the very outset.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N.K. Singh inquired whether there had been any recent instances of "deviation" that could raise doubts about the independence of the CAG.

Bhushan argued that the number of CAG reports has been decreasing, accompanied by a decline in staff strength. He further alleged that audits in BJP-ruled states were being obstructed, calling it an "unfortunate development," with Maharashtra being one such example. Highlighting the Supreme Court's role in safeguarding the independence of institutions like the CBI and the Election Commission through its interventions in appointments, Bhushan emphasized the need for similar measures to uphold the autonomy of the CAG.

Bhushan argued that government-controlled appointments would compromise the independence of the CAG. In response, Justice Surya Kant remarked, "We have to trust our institutions." He also referred to Article 148 of the Constitution, highlighting that the CAG enjoys the same protection against removal as a Supreme Court judge.

"The question is whether just the safeguard against removal is sufficient to guarantee independence?," Bhushan submitted. 

However, Justice Kant noted that the constitutional provisions governing the Election Commission of India (ECI) are distinct, as they explicitly state that EC appointments must be made in accordance with a law enacted by Parliament. He questioned whether the Court could intervene to mandate a different procedure when Article 148 of the Constitution clearly vests the power to appoint the CAG with the President.

"Where the Constitution has provided an unbridled power of appointment, should and to what extent the Court rewrite the provision?," Justice Kant asked.

Ultimately, the bench agreed to issue notice to the Centre, seeking its response. The petition was tagged with another case seeking similar relief. Justice Kant noted that the matter should be heard by a three-judge bench, while Bhushan suggested that even a Constitution Bench could take it up.

Case Title: Centre for Public Interest Litigation vs Union of India W.P.(C) No. 194/2025